9 ms·

The state of nutrition science is pathetic. The science is conflicted over a simple question of fact -- whether or not a trivially measurable short-term effect

The state of nutrition science is pathetic. The science is conflicted over a simple question of fact -- whether or not a trivially measurable short-term effect occurs when you eat one of the most common food additives in the world. If we can't even answer THIS -- it seems like it should be incredibly easy to answer -- I don't see why people can claim anything at all about diets and macronutrients. Nutrition science needs a fundamental breakthrough and I don't know where it's going to come from but I desperately hope it happens quickly. Because a lot of people are suffering and dying of poor nutrition and we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us.

bronbron 12y ago
> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the incredible cultural pressures that prey on those biological incentives (taco bell spends a lot of money to encourage you to make bad health decisions). Salt, cholesterol, fat, carbs - these are distractions from being healthy. People who eat healthy amounts of reasonable food (although even then, there's that guy who ate twinkies for a year and managed to lose weight by keeping his calories in check) rarely suffer from poor nutrition. Yeah, everyone knows that guy who was a vegan and ran every day for 40 years and keeled over at 45 from a heart problem. He's the exception.
- DougWebb 12y ago
  Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. And that's the problem; everyone's body responds differently to a host of factors, and we don't understand the factors or the responses.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    Not to sound like a dick, but: > Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. is almost always bullshit. People who truthfully track their calories and err on the side of caution (did I eat 1 cup of yogurt or 1.5?) rarely end up surprised. Sure, some people have thyroid conditions. If you do, you're the minority and you should get it treated. Otherwise, your body is pretty much the same as everyone else's with respect to metabolic rates (when age is factored in).
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. To say that all of the health effects from everything we consume are well known and settled is silly. edit: I shouldn't even say "health" effects; just systemic effects period. Not only is nutrition not exclusively about weight loss, it isn't even about self-improvement. Rather, it's about a basic understanding of the construction and functioning of the human body.
      - bronbron 12y ago
        > Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. Maintaining a healthy weight is the primary health problem for the vast majority of people concerned about their personal nutrition.
        lukeschlather 12y ago
        Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is.
        bronbron 12y ago
        > Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is. It absolutely is the primary problem for most people concerned with nutritional issues in developed nations. Obesity (which is quickly becoming the epidemic it's made out to be) carries all sorts of nasty side-effects that are well documented.
- superuser2 12y ago
  Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    > Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that. > Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing. Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary. > There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification. Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      I was with you until the last sentence. I'm from a whole family of skinny people. We eat like horses, just to maintain our weight. Nobody gets even a little tummy bulge until they're 45 or 50. My middle son is currently 6'3" and 150 lbs and eats constantly, the highest-calorie foods available to him, as much as several other people. Always has. When in high school for an after-school snack we baked one frozen pizza for the family, one for him. This is clearly some genetic thing - I was the same way; my nieces are the same way (one getting married in a size 2, that had to be taken in). Eats ice cream by the quart, as often as she can get it.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?
  - bronbron 12y ago
    > Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. Not really, unless we're counting death. Most people gain weight as they get older. > If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20? You're phrasing that the wrong way. Your BMR changes depending on your current weight. If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight (probably somewhere in the 220-240 lb range). To gain 300 pounds over 30 years would require you to constantly be consuming more and more as time goes on. You're also completely negating the fact that most people would (and probably do) have a 'reality check' once they get into the 200+ range, and reduce their caloric intake (though unfortunately most likely only to resume their high caloric intake once they've dropped in weight a little).
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      >If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight You're agreeing with the post then, that very long term it's pretty even.
      - bronbron 12y ago
        Oh, sure, after reading your post I think I see what that post was getting it. I didn't originally. Originally I thought the poster meant "it can't be that simple because otherwise everyone would be 500 pounds", but yes, over time it does become true.
- chc 12y ago
  If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.
  - bronbron 12y ago
    > If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. In most developed nations (which, admittedly I assume HN is largely composed of), people have problems with overconsumption as opposed to underconsumption. You're right though, your ideal scenario is energy burned === energy taken in an appropriate weight range for your height and muscular stature. > Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. It's really, really not. > I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition. I'll repeat what I said in another comment: Maintaining a healthy weight is (or should be, at least) the primary concern of the vast majority of people concerned with their personal nutrition.
- Padding 12y ago
  > Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. I guess that's the equivalent of Stroustrup's "If you understand int and vector you understand C++", for nutritionists.
tmod 12y ago
I'd recommend this book by Ronald Gaucho It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't: Why Clinical Research Can't Guarantee The Right Medical Answers "The truth is, few people know the first thing about clinical research. The public reads about a medical research project that announces unbelievable results for a miraculous drug. Some years later, another investigation completely wipes out those initial favorable findings. Hormones Cut Women’s Risk of Heart Disease (San Francisco Chronicle, 1994) Hormones Don’t Protect Women from Heart Disease, Study Says (Washington Post, 2001) The people are confused because we do not understand the process behind these conflicting results. Our health, and in fact, our very lives are dependent on clinical trials, but we know little about them. This book explains the issues the public needs to be aware of when it comes to clinical research. It uncovers the problems in medical investigations that can not be overcome no matter how much care and diligence medical researchers bring to a research project. The basic premise that drives the writing is that it is impossible for medical researchers to guarantee that they can get all the right answers from a single study. No matter how good the investigators are, no matter how well a study is planned, no matter how carefully the plans are executed and no matter how conscientiously the results are analyzed and interpreted – the answer may still be wrong. The deck is stacked against medical researchers and the public – you – should be skeptical of the results no matter how impressive they seem on the surface."
- tedunangst 12y ago
  I've decided to eat eggs every other day, to balance out the reports that they're good and bad.
  - DigitalJack 12y ago
    But do you eat the big endian first? Or the little endian?
    - FLUX-YOU 12y ago
      Grade A Jumbo Endian
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
haberman 12y ago
Relevant: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
fidotron 12y ago
I think this is the big area big data analysis will end up revolutionising. The only problem is really getting reliable data into the system. Sensors in your mouth (probably in the teeth) are more obvious - sensors at the other end might be a harder sell. And what goes for nutrition will work for drug interaction monitoring too.
- khc 12y ago
  What if the sensors are inside the toilet?
  - andy_ppp 12y ago
    I have to log into my toilet :-(
    - thaumasiotes 12y ago
      I feel sure that a smart toilet shouldn't have trouble detecting who you are.
      - khc 12y ago
        I am sure poop can be used as a form of biometric ;-)
scottlocklin 12y ago
Dean Edell broke the salt "news" decades ago. Apparently the misapprehension all dates back to some diet of peaches and rice (high in potassium) which helped regulate blood pressure of people with kidney disease. People have been quoting it as a fact since then. The reality is, people with healthy kidneys can excrete excess salt, and sodium/potassium balance is what is actually important. Since most people are eating processed garbage, they don't get enough potassium.
Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
It takes a while to change conclusions. The important thing is that they do change in the face of evidence. Personally, I do take some risks by changing early with what I consider sufficient evidence. Like Feynman said about the viscosity issue, many will steer towards what is currently the norm but slowly the data will correct.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > ... but slowly the data will correct. ITYM people's conclusions will slowly adjust to accumulating evidence. The entire process is ultimately steered by experimental evidence.
  - Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
    Right, but the evidence is affected by both past evidence and preconceived notions. Because of this, and outliers, it takes time.
laichzeit0 12y ago
I read something interesting about high GI vs low GI foods that I didn't know [1]. The TL;DR "The GI value of a food is determined when it’s eaten in isolation after an overnight fast. As in, this is how this food will affect your blood sugar when it’s the FIRST and ONLY thing you’re eating after a full night of not eating anything." So the whole high GI is bad thing taken to the extreme e.g. clean eating, is probably completely blown out of proportion. It's measured in a very isolated ring-fenced setting that most likely doesn't apply to how you eat food anyway. Put bluntly: don't fret too much about eating white rice instead of brown rice (especially if you're counting macros). http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/ http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
- equoid 12y ago
  Don't be silly. That measurement technique is to allow you to isolate and measure the effect. You seem to want to infer that the effect does not occur in any other circumstances. That is as inane as disregarding crash test dummy results because they take place in a controlled environment which is not the same as 'real life'.
  - rfrey 12y ago
    It's not silly, at least not on the face of it to a complete duffer in nutritional science (me). Intuitively it seems like nutrition is a highly interdependent system of variables. The effect of a food on your body and blood chemistry might be completely different when consumed in combination with other foods. Or it might not. Testable! Give subjects the same combinations of foods (maybe scaled by body weight) a set time before consuming the test food, and measure blood sugar delta. In any case, it might be wrong but it's not silly.
    - equoid 12y ago
      I stand by my verdict. He was stating that ring fenced measurements are blown out of proportion because they do not reflect real life behaviour. I'd expect a citation otherwise I am happy to dismiss it as silly.
bitJericho 12y ago
We know a lot about nutrition and healthy eating. You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Go talk to a dietician.
- frou_dh 12y ago
  Bring a trailer for the Heart Healthy Whole Grains®
- Padding 12y ago
  I'm genuinely curious. Is there any evidence that dieticians are more than just cargo-cultists? Talking to them usually results in "more of this and less of that and exercise and being thorough and blah blah blah". That sounds a lot like "I have no real idea of what's going on, but something in this broad spectrum of measures is bound to eventually pay off". That's very different from an answer that one would expect from a true professional, which would be more along the lines of "In this long and complex chain of events, this point here is the one that you need to affect in order to experience the effect you're looking for".
  - leephillips 12y ago
    Dieticians are not health professionals in the sense that doctors, RNs, or physician assistants are. The typical state requirement to be a dietician is a single multiple-choice test with some basic questions about health and nutrition. You might not even need a college degree.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      I didn't mean walk into Dietician's-R-Us and start believing every word they're saying. My point is that we are very knowledgable about what needs to be done to stay healthy, go talk to someone who knows, and don't go to your local herbel remedies and dieting fad store expecting anything but mock confusion towards the scientific research.

bronbron 12y ago

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the incredible cultural pressures that prey on those biological incentives (taco bell spends a lot of money to encourage you to make bad health decisions). Salt, cholesterol, fat, carbs - these are distractions from being healthy. People who eat healthy amounts of reasonable food (although even then, there's that guy who ate twinkies for a year and managed to lose weight by keeping his calories in check) rarely suffer from poor nutrition. Yeah, everyone knows that guy who was a vegan and ran every day for 40 years and keeled over at 45 from a heart problem. He's the exception.

DougWebb 12y ago
Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. And that's the problem; everyone's body responds differently to a host of factors, and we don't understand the factors or the responses.
- bronbron 12y ago
  Not to sound like a dick, but: > Neither of which have any direct or consistent correlation to physical activity or food consumed. is almost always bullshit. People who truthfully track their calories and err on the side of caution (did I eat 1 cup of yogurt or 1.5?) rarely end up surprised. Sure, some people have thyroid conditions. If you do, you're the minority and you should get it treated. Otherwise, your body is pretty much the same as everyone else's with respect to metabolic rates (when age is factored in).
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. To say that all of the health effects from everything we consume are well known and settled is silly. edit: I shouldn't even say "health" effects; just systemic effects period. Not only is nutrition not exclusively about weight loss, it isn't even about self-improvement. Rather, it's about a basic understanding of the construction and functioning of the human body.
    - bronbron 12y ago
      > Nutrition isn't exclusively (or even primarily) about weight loss. Maintaining a healthy weight is the primary health problem for the vast majority of people concerned about their personal nutrition.
      - lukeschlather 12y ago
        Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is.
        bronbron 12y ago
        > Keeping weight low is the primary metric that people currently track and associate with their health, but that doesn't mean weight is the primary problem, just that people think it is. It absolutely is the primary problem for most people concerned with nutritional issues in developed nations. Obesity (which is quickly becoming the epidemic it's made out to be) carries all sorts of nasty side-effects that are well documented.
superuser2 12y ago
Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that. > Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter. Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing. Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary. > There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification. Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    I was with you until the last sentence. I'm from a whole family of skinny people. We eat like horses, just to maintain our weight. Nobody gets even a little tummy bulge until they're 45 or 50. My middle son is currently 6'3" and 150 lbs and eats constantly, the highest-calorie foods available to him, as much as several other people. Always has. When in high school for an after-school snack we baked one frozen pizza for the family, one for him. This is clearly some genetic thing - I was the same way; my nieces are the same way (one getting married in a size 2, that had to be taken in). Eats ice cream by the quart, as often as she can get it.
tbrownaw 12y ago
Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?
- bronbron 12y ago
  > Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. Not really, unless we're counting death. Most people gain weight as they get older. > If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20? You're phrasing that the wrong way. Your BMR changes depending on your current weight. If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight (probably somewhere in the 220-240 lb range). To gain 300 pounds over 30 years would require you to constantly be consuming more and more as time goes on. You're also completely negating the fact that most people would (and probably do) have a 'reality check' once they get into the 200+ range, and reduce their caloric intake (though unfortunately most likely only to resume their high caloric intake once they've dropped in weight a little).
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight You're agreeing with the post then, that very long term it's pretty even.
    - bronbron 12y ago
      Oh, sure, after reading your post I think I see what that post was getting it. I didn't originally. Originally I thought the poster meant "it can't be that simple because otherwise everyone would be 500 pounds", but yes, over time it does become true.
chc 12y ago
If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. In most developed nations (which, admittedly I assume HN is largely composed of), people have problems with overconsumption as opposed to underconsumption. You're right though, your ideal scenario is energy burned === energy taken in an appropriate weight range for your height and muscular stature. > Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. It's really, really not. > I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition. I'll repeat what I said in another comment: Maintaining a healthy weight is (or should be, at least) the primary concern of the vast majority of people concerned with their personal nutrition.
Padding 12y ago
> Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. I guess that's the equivalent of Stroustrup's "If you understand int and vector you understand C++", for nutritionists.

tmod 12y ago

I'd recommend this book by Ronald Gaucho It's Great! Oops, No It Isn't: Why Clinical Research Can't Guarantee The Right Medical Answers "The truth is, few people know the first thing about clinical research. The public reads about a medical research project that announces unbelievable results for a miraculous drug. Some years later, another investigation completely wipes out those initial favorable findings. Hormones Cut Women’s Risk of Heart Disease (San Francisco Chronicle, 1994) Hormones Don’t Protect Women from Heart Disease, Study Says (Washington Post, 2001) The people are confused because we do not understand the process behind these conflicting results. Our health, and in fact, our very lives are dependent on clinical trials, but we know little about them. This book explains the issues the public needs to be aware of when it comes to clinical research. It uncovers the problems in medical investigations that can not be overcome no matter how much care and diligence medical researchers bring to a research project. The basic premise that drives the writing is that it is impossible for medical researchers to guarantee that they can get all the right answers from a single study. No matter how good the investigators are, no matter how well a study is planned, no matter how carefully the plans are executed and no matter how conscientiously the results are analyzed and interpreted – the answer may still be wrong. The deck is stacked against medical researchers and the public – you – should be skeptical of the results no matter how impressive they seem on the surface."

tedunangst 12y ago
I've decided to eat eggs every other day, to balance out the reports that they're good and bad.
- DigitalJack 12y ago
  But do you eat the big endian first? Or the little endian?
  - FLUX-YOU 12y ago
    Grade A Jumbo Endian
- enraged_camel 12y ago

haberman 12y ago

Relevant: http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

fidotron 12y ago

I think this is the big area big data analysis will end up revolutionising. The only problem is really getting reliable data into the system. Sensors in your mouth (probably in the teeth) are more obvious - sensors at the other end might be a harder sell. And what goes for nutrition will work for drug interaction monitoring too.

khc 12y ago
What if the sensors are inside the toilet?
- andy_ppp 12y ago
  I have to log into my toilet :-(
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    I feel sure that a smart toilet shouldn't have trouble detecting who you are.
    - khc 12y ago
      I am sure poop can be used as a form of biometric ;-)

scottlocklin 12y ago

Dean Edell broke the salt "news" decades ago. Apparently the misapprehension all dates back to some diet of peaches and rice (high in potassium) which helped regulate blood pressure of people with kidney disease. People have been quoting it as a fact since then. The reality is, people with healthy kidneys can excrete excess salt, and sodium/potassium balance is what is actually important. Since most people are eating processed garbage, they don't get enough potassium.

Lost_BiomedE 12y ago

It takes a while to change conclusions. The important thing is that they do change in the face of evidence. Personally, I do take some risks by changing early with what I consider sufficient evidence. Like Feynman said about the viscosity issue, many will steer towards what is currently the norm but slowly the data will correct.

lutusp 12y ago
> ... but slowly the data will correct. ITYM people's conclusions will slowly adjust to accumulating evidence. The entire process is ultimately steered by experimental evidence.
- Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
  Right, but the evidence is affected by both past evidence and preconceived notions. Because of this, and outliers, it takes time.

laichzeit0 12y ago

I read something interesting about high GI vs low GI foods that I didn't know [1]. The TL;DR "The GI value of a food is determined when it’s eaten in isolation after an overnight fast. As in, this is how this food will affect your blood sugar when it’s the FIRST and ONLY thing you’re eating after a full night of not eating anything." So the whole high GI is bad thing taken to the extreme e.g. clean eating, is probably completely blown out of proportion. It's measured in a very isolated ring-fenced setting that most likely doesn't apply to how you eat food anyway. Put bluntly: don't fret too much about eating white rice instead of brown rice (especially if you're counting macros). http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/ http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/

equoid 12y ago
Don't be silly. That measurement technique is to allow you to isolate and measure the effect. You seem to want to infer that the effect does not occur in any other circumstances. That is as inane as disregarding crash test dummy results because they take place in a controlled environment which is not the same as 'real life'.
- rfrey 12y ago
  It's not silly, at least not on the face of it to a complete duffer in nutritional science (me). Intuitively it seems like nutrition is a highly interdependent system of variables. The effect of a food on your body and blood chemistry might be completely different when consumed in combination with other foods. Or it might not. Testable! Give subjects the same combinations of foods (maybe scaled by body weight) a set time before consuming the test food, and measure blood sugar delta. In any case, it might be wrong but it's not silly.
  - equoid 12y ago
    I stand by my verdict. He was stating that ring fenced measurements are blown out of proportion because they do not reflect real life behaviour. I'd expect a citation otherwise I am happy to dismiss it as silly.

bitJericho 12y ago

We know a lot about nutrition and healthy eating. You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Go talk to a dietician.

frou_dh 12y ago
Bring a trailer for the Heart Healthy Whole Grains®
Padding 12y ago
I'm genuinely curious. Is there any evidence that dieticians are more than just cargo-cultists? Talking to them usually results in "more of this and less of that and exercise and being thorough and blah blah blah". That sounds a lot like "I have no real idea of what's going on, but something in this broad spectrum of measures is bound to eventually pay off". That's very different from an answer that one would expect from a true professional, which would be more along the lines of "In this long and complex chain of events, this point here is the one that you need to affect in order to experience the effect you're looking for".
- leephillips 12y ago
  Dieticians are not health professionals in the sense that doctors, RNs, or physician assistants are. The typical state requirement to be a dietician is a single multiple-choice test with some basic questions about health and nutrition. You might not even need a college degree.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    I didn't mean walk into Dietician's-R-Us and start believing every word they're saying. My point is that we are very knowledgable about what needs to be done to stay healthy, go talk to someone who knows, and don't go to your local herbel remedies and dieting fad store expecting anything but mock confusion towards the scientific research.